Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

Delta Faucet Company sues Amazon Counterfeiter over Unauthorized Sales

03 Friday Feb 2023

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Delta Faucet Company is once again pursuing a counterfeit faucet seller from Amazon in the Southern District of Indiana. The Complaint (below) details how a company’s trademarks are impacted by unauthorized sellers and the resulting negative online marketplace reviews. As with Delta’s previously-filed lawsuits, the Complaint highlights the gray market existing within Amazon’s “Fulfillment by Amazon” services that allows for counterfeit sales, leading to invalid product warranties, disgruntled consumers, and damaged brands.

Delta’s most recent “counterfeit” lawsuit resulted in a default judgment and permanent injunction as the Defendant never appeared. The lawsuit took just a few days over one years. The injunction, probably Delta’s real goal, presumably allowed them to finally stop the unauthorized Amazon sales. However, like mosquitoes, stop one counterfeiter and another will inevitably appear. We can probably expect a similar result in this lawsuit…no appearance by the defendants, default judgment, and injunction.

Stay tuned for updates.

Delta Faucet Company v. Watkins et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00200-JMS-MKK
File Date: February 1, 2023
Plaintiff: Delta Faucet Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendants: Ben Watkins, John Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Deception
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Complaint:

Northwest Indiana Jewelry Stores Clash over Diamond Logos

03 Friday Feb 2023

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Since 1905, Albert’s Diamond Jewelers has been selling diamond jewelry in Northwest Indiana. In 2002, they adopted the logo seen below when they moved to their current location in Schererville, Indiana. Their logo has not been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The logo is described as follows: “The mark prominently incorporates a diamond drawing with sharp edges and a multitude of internal sketch lines, all intended to evoke in a potential customer’s mind a precision cut, high-quality diamond. It’s name “Albert’s” appears above the term “Diamond Jewelers,” and incorporates a distinct style of typeface/font….” See Complaint (below), Section 13.

AaLand Diamond Jewelers recently opened a new location in Crown Point, Indiana, which is about 9 miles away from Schererville. AaLand has adopted a logo that Albert’s considers to be “suspiciously similar” to the 21-year old Albert’s logo.

Albert’s reached out to AaLand in late 2022 about their concern, but the parties have not found an amicable resolution. Albert’s initial letter, via counsel, references a single instance of consumer confusion in which an anonymous customer congratulated Albert’s on opening a new store. Albert’s has now filed a lawsuit seeking Court intervention.

I’ll let defense counsel do their job and dig up tons of other photos of similar jewelry store logos, but I can at least compare the parties’ respective logos.

In my opinion, the distinctive elements of the Albert’s font are the swooping, extended arm (leg?) of the “A” and the diamond-shaped asterisk. Neither of those elements appear in the AaLand logo. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the AaLand font is just a standard, stock font. Font experts leave a comment below. Albert’s utilizes all capitalized letters, while AaLand features the lower case “a”.

Looking at the two diamonds, they are clearly not identical. They both appear just like what you’d expect a diamond logo to look like, basically what you see on most jewelry store signs. Both are the classic diamond-shape outline with many internal lines depicting facets, just like a diamond. Jewelry experts (and eventually defense counsel) may be able to identify the differences in cuts portrayed on the logos.

Both logos incorporate the generic phrase “Diamond Jewelers,” but the Albert’s logo separates their name from the generic phrase with lines both above and below. The generic phrase is about 5/7 the width of the Albert’s name. The AaLand name is the same width as the generic phrase and separated by one line, which is also the same width as the wording.

If these two jewelry stores weren’t 9 miles apart, would there be any problem? Does close proximity (9 miles) override the ability to use generic elements in your logo? AaLand apparently doesn’t think so based off just one anonymous instance of consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for AaLand’s response to Albert’s Complaint.

Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc. v. AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC

Court Case Number: 2-23-cv-00039-PPS-JPK
File Date: February 1, 2023
Plaintiff: Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gary E. Hood of Hood Legal Group PC, Daniel W. Glavin of O’Neill McFadden & Willett LLP
Defendants: AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint:

Evansville Software Company sues Ex-Developers and their New Employer over Stolen Software Code

01 Tuesday Nov 2022

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The plaintiff in this lawsuit, MaddenCo, Inc., is an Evansville, Indiana-based software developer. Specifically, they develop software systems for independent tire dealers and truck stop service centers.

The defendants include two ex-employees of the plaintiff, a software development manager and software developer, who have allegedly developed infringing software code for a competing Louisiana company (also a named defendant) in violation of contractual obligations and fiduciary duties. The plaintiff’s software code has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Stay tuned for updates.

MaddenCo Inc. v. Reed et al.

Court Case Number: 3:22-cv-173
File Date: October 31, 2022
Plaintiff: MaddenCo Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael T. McNally of Delk McNally LLP
Defendants: James Reed, Dru Darby, HG AutoTech LLC
Cause: Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Tortious Interference, Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Representation, False Designation of Origin, Reverse Passing Off, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Declaratory Judgment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Honest Abe Roofing sues Georgia Couple for Breach of Franchise Agreement, Trademark Infringement

09 Friday Sep 2022

Posted by in Business Law, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In April 2021, the Georgia-based defendants in this Indiana lawsuit entered into a Franchise Agreement with Honest Abe, a roof installation corporation located in Terre Haute, Indiana. The franchise relationship did not last long, and Honest Abe send a first Notice of Default in March 2022 asserting several material defaults. Following the failure by defendants to timely cure the defaults, a Notice of Termination was sent to the defendants on May 5, 2022. The defendants allegedly owe the plaintiff around $186,000 in past-due fees. The defendants are also accused of violating their non-compete agreements by starting a competing roofing company in the same geographic area. The Complaint (below) details interactions between an investigator and the defendants in which the defendants continue to refer to themselves as “Honest Abe.”

Honest Abe also requests a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (see Motion below).

Based on the very thorough complaint (with 19 exhibits) and the motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, I expect the defendants will have a big fight on their hands. Pursuant to the Franchise Agreements, the defendants could also be responsible for Honest Abe’s attorney fees and costs, which are probably already substantial.

Stay tuned for updates.

Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 2:22-cv-00387-JRS-MG
File Date: September 7, 2022
Plaintiff: Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: William W. Drummy of Wilkinson Goeller Modesitt Wilkinson & Drummy LLP
Defendants: DCH & Associates, LLC, Honest Abe Roofing of Macon Georgia, LLC, Dameion Harris, Christine Harris
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Breach of Franchise Agreement, Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, Misappropriation of Goodwill
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Mario Garcia

Complaint:

Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction:

Atlas Van Lines sues Atlas Logistic Courier for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

10 Monday Jan 2022

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

January’s first Indiana intellectual property lawsuit involves Atlas Van Lines seeking to again protect its famous “Atlas” brand.

The Plaintiffs, based in Evansville, Indiana, have been transporting goods under the name “Atlas” since 1948. The Atlas family of companies includes more than 430 independent Atlas agencies across the U.S. and Canada, plus authorized partners in 140 countries. 

The Defendant is alleged to have offered freight transport, storage, warehousing, logistics and forwarding services under the fictitious business name “Atlas Logistic Courier.” However, due to various acts of subterfuge, the Plaintiffs have been unable to determine the true identity of the Defendant, thus initially filing against a John Doe. This case will be interesting to follow to see how the Plaintiffs try to figure out the Defendant’s identity.

The Defendant’s website, http://www.atlaslogisticcourier.com, is down as of January 10, so they may already have made the decision to give up and likely disappear.

Stay tuned for updates.

AWGI LLC et al. v. Doe

Case Number: 3:22-cv-00004-RLY-MPB
File Date: January 7, 2022
Plaintiff: AWGI LLC, Atlas Van Lines, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mark F. Warzecha, Esq. of Widerman Malek, PL
Defendant: John Doe d/b/a Atlas Logistic Courier
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint: